New York City is the most urban city in America, with the largest subway network by far, and yet, even here, ridership levels have yet to recover to their pre-pandemic levels. Recent data shows subway ridership hovering between 70% and 80% of 2019 levels, and the MTA anticipates that it will remain "at about that level through 2029."

The obvious explanation is that office workers continue to work from home on occasion, and that's certainly a significant part of the story here. But it doesn't appear to be the entire story.

For example, looking at station ridership recovery across the city, there visually appears to be a geographic correlation with areas in Upper Manhattan, the Bronx, and the outer boroughs in general not recovering to the same extent as Manhattan.

In the early days of the pandemic, ridership levels were mostly correlated with median household incomes. Ridership remained higher in the outer boroughs, while residents in wealthier neighbourhoods simply worked from home. Since then, that correlation has weakened and the geography has inverted.

This suggests to me that in addition to WFH, there has also been a structural mobility shift for many households. We know that car registrations in NYC spiked during the pandemic, and presumably that means some new mobility habits were formed.

Cover photo by Igor Wang on Unsplash

Chart from Subway Recovery Tracker

Nationwide across the US, transit ridership is only at about 70% of where it was in 2019 before the pandemic. But this is not the case in all cities around the world. According to this recent Bloomberg article, Madrid, Hong Kong, and Paris are all above their 2019 ridership levels. Seoul and Shanghai are also close at just over 90%, and London is at 85%.

So this problem of fewer people riding transit seems to be a North and South American phenomenon. Rio de Janeiro is at 73%, Mexico City is at 70%, and San Francisco is somewhere near or at the bottom at 44%. The obvious explanations for this are that Europe and Asia are generally denser and less car-oriented, their return-to-office patterns have been much stronger (less WFH), and their governments probably care more about transit (and spend more money on it).

Broadly speaking, I think this is all true, but I'd love to know more precisely what's driving these differences. Because it's not exactly obvious. Consider, for example, Paris and London. Paris is at 103% of its 2019 levels, whereas London is only at 85%. Why is that? Both cities share a lot of similarities. They have a river that weaves through the middle, they're dense, they have lots of trains, and both are alpha global cities.

So why the delta? What exactly is Paris doing that is encouraging more transit usage?

Charts via Bloomberg

So apparently Lyft is the largest bikeshare operator in North America. They operate around 68,000 bikes and scooters, which equaled some 52 million rides last year. Ridership also continues to grow. Since 2020, ridership has grown in cities like New York (+56%), Chicago (+79%), Boston (82%), and Denver (+170%).

However, this part of Lyft's business was in the news this week because the company announced that they are entertaining proposals to sell it, as well as "strategic partnerships." The company has said that it remains committed to offering bikes through the Lyft app, but clearly it is trying to shore up its balance sheet.

This raises some interesting questions. Can bikeshare be a profitable and sustainable for-profit business? Or do we now need to be thinking of it as an important public service that is deserving of subsidies -- similar to how public transit and cars/roads work in most cities? My own view is that these networks are here to stay regardless of how profitable or unprofitable they might be.

For additional stats on Lyft's bikeshare business, click here. One of the figures that I found interesting, but not surprising, was that 71% of riders use bikeshare for "fun." This is by far the most popular use case. The next most popular use is "errands" at 39%.